It’s time for another random creepy comment with dozens of upvotes from The Spearhead! This time the commenter is a fella named Rebel, envisioning an epic future battle between the ladies and the dudes.
Women are engaged in a “holy crusade” against the male gender.
If men rise up, they will face an enemy who is willing to die, rather than give an inch. Women are possessed, their brains are anything but human.
They are lost to us.
I read that the universe is trying to acquire consciousness through us humans.
Some force is holding us back in darkness and we know what that force is.
Darth Vader? The CIA? The IRS? Cats? Oh, wait, ladies. Right?
If men revolt, the ensuing fight will come to epic proportions.
What’s at stake: nothing less than civilization.
But there’s a surprise ending! If you’re a dude, and want to avoid this epic battle, you can just move south of the border:
Is there an escape?
I think there is.
It’s called South America.
At least for now.
Hmm. South America didn’t work out so well for (SPOILER ALERT!) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
But I guess Rebel knows this, because he ends with:
But if men are not prepared to fight an unnatural war, they will be reduced to slavery (at least those lucky enough to avoid elimination).
Yipes.
On a completely unrelated note, my cat has taken to drinking out of cups. Putting her whole head in them to do so. It’s the cutest damn thing.
I guess that’s not a completely unrelated note, as she’s been waging an unnatural war against me (and everyone else) since I first took her in as an overgrown kitten, barefoot and pregnant, more than a decade ago. Thankfully I am much larger than she is, otherwise I’d be dead.
Lolz indeed, kariface! I took a “Men’s Studies” class at my women’s college, in fact; it was really interesting. It was taught by a man, even! We talked a lot about “anxious masculinity” and queerness and the often-dysfunctional versions of “manliness” that some men perform in society … so I don’t think these MRAs actually want men’s studies as much as they think they do.
1.Mental illness=> Equal occurence, unequal severity, but I will not quibble on this one.
2 Poverty => In the US, there are vastly more men than women is extreme poverty (eg the homeless are 2/3 male, and unsheltered homeless are 9/10 male).
3.Abuse => Correct, overall rates are equal.
4.Aids and HIV => CDC statistics show that in 2008, 73% of persons living with a diagnosis of HIV infection were male.
5.Cancer => Men die younger than women from all forms of cancer except breast.
6 Reproductive rights => Men have ZERO reproductive rights in the US, or anywhere else
7. ?!? What ?!?
8.Education => Women are 61% of college graduates. At the High School level, 72 percent of female students graduated, compared with 65 percent of male students.
9.Violent crime =>
Male offender/Male victim 65.3%
Male offender/Female victim 22.7%
Female offender/Male victim 9.6%
Female offender/Female victim 2.4%
10.Unemployment => In August 2009, the male unemployment rate stood at 10.9% while that of females was 8.2%.
Note that these are YOUR picks. Even using YOUR choices, men bear the brunt of suffering and pain.
AND YET … there are almost 3000 University departments, institutes, presidential commissions, etc. trying to find solutions to women’s problems … and only ONE equivalent for men’s problems.
Extreme poverty isn’t generally directly equatable with homelessness. Extreme poverty is “Income beneath 50% of the poverty level”. Citation needed, just the same, homeless women are so frequently erased by you asshats.
Novel. Citation needed.
In the US, that’s true. The US is not the world, you asshat.
Men don’t have bodily autonomy issues attached to them, you stupid tit. If men actually bore children I’d fight just as hard for them, but *THEY DON’T*.
Yes, but if you actually examine studies of schooling throughout the years, you’ll find that teachers are biased towards male students (Especially white, middle class ones, but when all else is equal, the male ). Female students are hushed up, they’re prevented from contributing, and they’re undervalued. Their talents are told to be nonexistent, they’re hampered in their run to higher education (Much like non-white children) from the get go.
That they succeed in greater numbers DESPITE these factors is not evidence of anti-male bias. In fact, there’s strong evidence of pro-male bias even at the secondary schooling level;
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/06/the_quiet_preference_for_men_i.html
For instance. And that’s not exactly a friend of feminists speaking there, if you check out the rest of their site.
I’d ask for a citation but that’s definitely in the right ball park. I find it curious that you are going to claim that something primarily done by men is oppression specifically by women.
But yes, men are disproportionately the victims of violence in the USA. They’re also the primary *ENACTORS* of violence in the USA… wonder if you can connect those dots on your own.
You do realize that, among others, homemakers aren’t counted as ‘unemployed’, right?
men do have reproductive rights – they have access to contraception regardless of marital status and they have access to voluntary sterilization. they dont have as many opportunities to exercise reproductive rights as women, but thats well… a fact of biology, it has nothing to do with the law.
Yeesh, disregard my article. On examination it lacks a variety of sources; it’s possible they’re correct, but they’re not a very good source because they focus on the opinions of a few.
@Sharculese that’s true, I had actually totally forgotten how much easier it is for men to get access to contraception than women.
clarification: now that i think about it, i have no idea whether a legal right to voluntary sterilization exists. can someone enlighten me?
but regardless, we can at least say that men enjoy all the reproductive rights secured by griswold v. connecticut and its progeny, assuming they are physically capable of exercising those rights.
I play at the role of thinking that women are actual people?
THERE IS NO CONTEXT!!!
But mostly because facts and reality are biased against you. You live in a fantasy world that denies other people actual experience, studies on matters related to the how the world actually works and just piss-poor logic and reasoning.
How very kind of you.
Redemption is for idolaters. All I need, is to treat women and all people I meet like human beings.
Or my ex-wives. But they (and I) made mistakes or were hurtful because they are people, not because they are women.
The difference between you and me, ANTZ, is I admit when I fuck up and correct it. You retreat into fantasy land after blaming everyone except yourself.
Your parents must be sad that you never developed past being five years old.
Just for? No, but it *is* a nice perk.
AntZ, you’ve now been told at least twice that most violence is committed against men BY OTHER MEN. You continue to push only the first half of the equation without admitting the second half. Now I ask you again, explain to me how the FUCK this is an example of men being victimized by women!
Wait…WHERE’S MY HAREM? Cynical, did they just show up at your house, or did you have to fill out a form?
AntZ, my dear boy, please elucidate me as to my transparent motives for being a feminist.
And as for redemption… from what, and to what end, am I being redeemed?
*signs up for captainbathrobe’s harem*
CB: The Harem comes when you are willing to admit to the utter inferiority of the male species; forswear all investigations into the replacement of women with virtual reality and dedicate yourself to giving footrubs and making sherbet.
Once you do that… they line up round the block. They are so happy to have a man who is willing to be slavish in adoration, while treating them as real people that they buy you shit… pillows and carpets and mood-lighting. They come by to “drink coffee” and discuss the elimination of all rights for men in the new World Order of the Title IX Police and the repeal of the Fifth Amendment for Men. Those who give really good footrubs get a card, so they can call on a genuine VAWA representative, who will protect them from the False Rape Pogroms.
As soon as I saw the writing on the wall I learned how to make Bon-bons.
I’ll note that my “harem” for being a male feminist is not really a harem at all. It is a collection of friends with a slightly larger demographic ratio of women to men. That is my social circle. I suppose in the eyes of an MRA, the only possible interaction between genders must be sexual in all cases. Note, I won’t deny, sex happens in my circle, but the framework of friendly relations is not some sort of narcissistic ideal of women orbiting around me for sex. It’s a collection of women and men who like playing video games and watching movies more then anything.
But no, I myself consider connected to feminist ideas because they are rational ideas. They are based largely in empirical research about disparity, they investigate forms of power and hierarchy that continually show up in many other analytical lenses, and they intersect with those same lenses: Looking at race, income, and knowledge disparity in the US and the world for instance. Feminism is another logical frame work in which to interpret for me.
Also, the whole multiple feminisms thing as well. But time is pulling me away~
NWO’s on moderation, so I just want to make sure everyone gets to enjoy this latest comment of his, which I just approved but which is back a page and likely to be missed if I don’t repost it. So here it is:
NWOslave | September 6, 2011 at 11:11 am
NWO: You’re equating making sure people can see to drive to fucking Nazism? That is, by far, the stupidest thing that has spewed from your keyboard. And given the shit you spew on a regular basis, that’s saying something!
So, NWO–do you advocate for changing the way that driving and roads and cars work in some way so that people with significantly impaired sight can drive safely? Or would you like to immediately issue drivers licenses en masse to those who had been previously denied them on that basis?
Antsy’s link is hilarious!
See One Good Man. See One Good Man run. See One Good Man oppress Hungry Man for Harem Women. See One Good Man smile.
And NWOslave’s hyperbolic nazi analogy is also brilliant comedy. I am beginning to think our trolls are actually comedians engaging in performance art. And as we all know, if there’s one thing Betty Friedan and Hitler had in common, it’s that they believed their positions were justified. Ergo holocaust.
Poor NWO. He’s so confused about everything.
Actually communists haven’t really made a habit of killing Christians. It’s a common misconception that this was a big part of their MO. That’s not to say the communists weren’t oppressive asshats regarding religion, but they did it by manipulating Christians into voluntarily giving up their rights, so they all closed down their own churches by popular vote. If that didn’t work they probably would have moved onto worse measures, but they didn’t really go out of their way to kill Christians.
I mean, yes, christians died by the droves in purges, but it wasn’t because they were christian, it’s because the majority population was christian, so purges would logically die in greater numbers. That’s not really what “Killing Christians” means linguistically. It would be like claiming communists killed white people specifically. They did kill white people, but it was a byproduct of their majority population suffering, unsurprisingly, the majority of paranoia purges.
Now if you want religions specifically targetted by communists for extermination, you’re looking at particular flavors of buddhists, as well as confucianism and taoism (all targetted in the cultural revolution, but flavors of buddhism were targetted by other regimes in other periods).
But then, NWO doesn’t care about accuracy. He wants his persecution fantasies. There *are* Christians who die for their faith, still, but it’s not as sexy to point out the tribal violence in Africa to conservatives. Especially not since the Christians kill the Muslims just as badly.
Kinda funny how NWO erases people he specifically claims to care about in favor of his myths, I guess. If by funny you mean sad, maybe.
Is it Godwin’s Law time now?
NWO, you do recognize that this man did not in any way prove that the texts he objected to -which were not compulsory were intrinsically anti-male. I understand that he used language very similar to your and other self-identified MRAs so you take his claims at face value.
But, much like your clearly false version of the Pepsi Co job that feminism cheated you out of, the man in the story established no independent verification of his claims. Also, despite the university’s desire to have the case struck out, it is still going to court. I, for one, can’t wait to see the evidence he presents.
Guys, don’t forget this is the same NWOslave who previous linked to a holocaust denial website to get support for one of his rants.